Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

wrong higher categories on Pensoft articles: how to deal with it #29

Closed
myrmoteras opened this issue Jan 28, 2022 · 17 comments
Closed

wrong higher categories on Pensoft articles: how to deal with it #29

myrmoteras opened this issue Jan 28, 2022 · 17 comments
Assignees
Labels

Comments

@myrmoteras
Copy link
Contributor

@gsautter if we encounter wrong higher categories in Pensoft sourced journals, how to deal with this?
see eg plazi/community#136

  1. If we notify Pensoft and they fix it, will this also be transferred to us?
  2. If not, then we have to do it on our end.
@myrmoteras
Copy link
Contributor Author

Looking at the pensoft XML, we are introducing them. so we need not only to correct this, but also have a policy how we add these attributes

@gsautter
Copy link

Right now, we take the higher taxa from the Pensoft TaxPub documents as what they are, simply assuming they are correct ... the idea is to not diverge from the original publication, but represent it as accurate as possible ... should we design a different approach?

@lyubomirpenev
Copy link

lyubomirpenev commented Jan 31, 2022 via email

@myrmoteras
Copy link
Contributor Author

myrmoteras commented Jan 31, 2022

this is what we have in TB from https://zookeys.pensoft.net/article/78233/
image

<taxonomicName id="61E2AFA59755A493ECAB7982134B81E5" LSID="http://zoobank.org/A2EF195A-A19C-43CD-A774-A06218E96EE9" authority="sp. nov." authorityName="sp. nov." class="Mammalia" family="Soricidae" genus="Chodsigoa" higherTaxonomySource="CoL" kingdom="Animalia" lsidName="Chodsigoa dabieshanensis" order="Eulipotyphla" pageId="0" pageNumber="129" phylum="Chordata" rank="species" species="dabieshanensis">Chodsigoa dabieshanensis sp. nov.</taxonomicName>

https://tb.plazi.org/GgServer/xml/AFACD42EDC6C56578612A6C37DF62B8B

https://tb.plazi.org/GgServer/html/AFACD42EDC6C56578612A6C37DF62B8B

and that is what's in Zookeys

<tp:taxon-name> <object-id content-type="arpha">AFACD42E-DC6C-5657-8612-A6C37DF62B8B</object-id> <tp:taxon-name-part taxon-name-part-type="genus" reg="Chodsigoa">Chodsigoa</tp:taxon-name-part> <tp:taxon-name-part taxon-name-part-type="species" reg="dabieshanensis">dabieshanensis</tp:taxon-name-part> <object-id content-type="zoobank" xlink:type="simple">http://zoobank.org/A2EF195A-A19C-43CD-A774-A06218E96EE9</object-id> </tp:taxon-name>

and

<subj-group subj-group-type="biological_taxon"> <subject>Chordata</subject> <subject>Mammalia</subject> <subject>Soricidae</subject> <subject>Vertebrata</subject> </subj-group>

How does the higher categories get attributes in Plazi <taxonomicName> ?

What to do if there are errors or missing higher categories?

@gsautter
Copy link

For treatment taxa, the importer also considers the higher taxa given in the tp:treatment-meta/kwd-group element ... here the source TaxPub (https://zookeys.pensoft.net/article/78233/download/xml/):
image

The authority is most definitely wrong ... and the higher taxa in the TreatmentBank XML match the ones givem in the TaxPub.

@myrmoteras
Copy link
Contributor Author

in this case, where does the phylum and class originate?

@gsautter
Copy link

in this case, where does the phylum and class originate?

Filled in from CoL and GBIF ... but existing higher taxa aren't replaced with these lookup results.

To ask the other way around: which higher taxa are wrong, exactly? If it's class and phylum, that's for me to investigate, but if it's others, the source TaxPub is the origin of those ...

@teodorgeorgiev
Copy link

It seems OK to me ... what exactly is wrong?

image

@gsautter
Copy link

@teodorgeorgiev <tp:taxon-authority>sp. nov.</tp:taxon-authority> doesn't really look right to me ... it's a status label, not an authority, is it?

@teodorgeorgiev
Copy link

Yes, the authority is wrong ... but I did not get what is wrong with the higher taxa

@gsautter
Copy link

Guess I'll have to check the higher taxa, then ... TB adds class and phylum to complete the higher taxa, so there might have been a mishap there.

@teodorgeorgiev
Copy link

it is corrected to tp:taxon-statussp. nov.</tp:taxon-status> ...

@gsautter
Copy link

it is corrected to tp:taxon-status>sp. nov.</tp:taxon-status> ...

OK, thanks, will re-import it asap.

@myrmoteras
Copy link
Contributor Author

@teodorgeorgiev we fixed it- that's why there is not nothing wrong.

@teodorgeorgiev
Copy link

@gsautter @myrmoteras Thanks! I appreciate really that. Is there a problem with the higher categories or it was only the wrong authority?

@gsautter
Copy link

gsautter commented Feb 1, 2022

@teodorgeorgiev reading the above, seems as though the higher taxa might have been phylum and class only (added on our end), which @myrmoteras said was corrected, so the authority would have been the only error in the source TaxPub proper.

@teodorgeorgiev
Copy link

@gsautter all clear now, 10x!

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

4 participants